Jump to content

Apology to the Maories


OldNick

Recommended Posts

That's reactionary nonsense. What we are talking about here isn't statues of Nelson in Britain. We are talking about statues celebrating slavery in areas where people were enslaved. We are talking about former colonies where the people were treated brutally, wanting to remove a statue of a colonial ruler who oppressed the local people. I think the population of a country should have a voice in these things. The British people, as a majority, don't want to remove British icons, so that's just muddying the issue. Of course there is a case for removing some statues.

 

There was talk from some confused folk of tearing down Nelsons column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was talk from some confused folk of tearing down Nelsons column.

 

What's your point? Do you think this is a majority? Do you think it's public opinion? There are people who think all kinds of things. That's irrelevant to whether or not Britain should recognise that it sanctioned a massacre and recognising it was not a good thing. I don't think you can compare the two. A minority wanting to remove Nelson's column is a wholly different issue to whether or not Britain should recognise a historical genocide. This is just what I mean by muddying the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your point? Do you think this is a majority? Do you think it's public opinion? There are people who think all kinds of things. That's irrelevant to whether or not Britain should recognise that it sanctioned a massacre and recognising it was not a good thing. I don't think you can compare the two. A minority wanting to remove Nelson's column is a wholly different issue to whether or not Britain should recognise a historical genocide. This is just what I mean by muddying the issue.

Trust me, there is an even smaller minority in the UK who want the government to say sorry for something that happened centuries ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, there is an even smaller minority in the UK who want the government to say sorry for something that happened centuries ago

 

Who apologised for anything? The British government recognised that it happened and that it was a bad thing. Is there anything there you disagree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, there is an even smaller minority in the UK who want the government to say sorry for something that happened centuries ago

 

a) there has been no “apology.”

b) I know that you have an issue with “Johnny Foreigner” but why exactly do you have a problem with our Government expressing regret at what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could delve into history and express regret for every unfortunate thing that happened since the formation of the nation to save time. Then we won't have to do it again.

Can you explain to me why it upsets you that the British government simply says something happened and that it was a bad thing? I'm having trouble understanding. I mean, it was already common knowledge, so just recognising it officially shouldn't trigger you this much. It's something to be proud of. Be pleased that your country isn't afraid to accept its own history. Don't be so insecure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of those who are getting upset and think that we shouldn't have admitted this happened (and that is all that has occurred here), how would you feel if the US government refused to admit that slavery happened? Would you consider it a sign of strength? Would you say they were right not to recognise it, because it was years ago and no former slaves are around now, so it didn't need to be in the history books? That we could officially pretend it wasn't a thing? In my opinion that would be a pretty weak and pathetic approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using words like "upset" "triggered" and "pretending history didn't happen" is just bizarre. When has anyone said that? I'm writing a couple of sentences on a saints forum, I'm not upset or triggered in the slightest.

The alternative to doing what we have done would be to pretend it didn't happen. The fact that we have recognised it happened has spurred several people to come on here and talk about it being the wrong thing to do. There have been comnents about tearing down Nelson's column, about attacking Churchill's reputation, about apologies that haven't happened, about going back through history and finding everything that was wrong, about self flagellation. Yes, I would say that some people have been triggered and are upset by Britain doing the simple and honourable thing of just recognising an unhappy historical event. After all these comments, still nobody has explained to me why Britain shouldn't recognise a historical massacre. Perhaps you can tell me why we shouldn't say it happened? I'm flummoxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative to doing what we have done would be to pretend it didn't happen. The fact that we have recognised it happened has spurred several people to come on here and talk about it being the wrong thing to do. There have been comnents about tearing down Nelson's column, about attacking Churchill's reputation, about apologies that haven't happened, about going back through history and finding everything that was wrong, about self flagellation. Yes, I would say that some people have been triggered and are upset by Britain doing the simple and honourable thing of just recognising an unhappy historical event. After all these comments, still nobody has explained to me why Britain shouldn't recognise a historical massacre. Perhaps you can tell me why we shouldn't say it happened? I'm flummoxed.
I think you should read my previous replies where I already stated I was happy to learn about atrocities alongside accomplishments and I further outlined what my issues were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read those and I still fail to see why there is any protest at simply recognising an event that we never officially recognised before. This thread has many negative reactions to something that seems pretty basic. I've seen people upset that we apologised. We didn't. People annoyed at tearing down statues. That's not the discussion here. People who think we shouldn't feel guilty about something that happened in history. We don't. People saying we should still be proud of positive things in our history. We are. What I don't see is recognition that it's okay to just accept something happened and it was sad, even though that's the actual subject here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not commenting on statues, because thisthose can only be discussed case by case (statue of someone who enslaved and destroyed the local community, I can understand them wanting it removed, statue in Britain of someone important to a British victory, of course not)

 

The fact that the envoy cried is personal to them and probably the conversations that took place immediately beforehand. The original post also claimed a great historical figure was being pilloried, when that's not really the case. I, along with a couple of others, have gone on to point out repeatedly that all that has happened is that a historical event has been officially recognised for the first time. After that all kinds of nonsense has been spouted, but it remains that that is all that has happened. Still nobody has said why that's a bad thing. You agree it's a good thing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, each government around the world should issue a statement along the lines of..

 

"As a nation, we collectively apologise for all the events judged on today's values that are now believed to be wrong. We also apologise for the things we are doing today that will be judge by a different standard in the future"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, each government around the world should issue a statement along the lines of..

 

"As a nation, we collectively apologise for all the events judged on today's values that are now believed to be wrong. We also apologise for the things we are doing today that will be judge by a different standard in the future"

 

Why do you think they should apologise? You know this story doesn't involve an apology, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, each government around the world should issue a statement along the lines of..

 

"As a nation, we collectively apologise for all the events judged on today's values that are now believed to be wrong. We also apologise for the things we are doing today that will be judge by a different standard in the future"

 

I think the Government should issue a “regret” statement for the tosh that you post on a regular basis. Most people seem to think that showing understanding of the harm our predecessors have done here in the past is not a bad thing. It seems that you have any issue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think they should apologise? You know this story doesn't involve an apology, right?

 

I don't but it will keep those who want an apology happy.

And a nod to our future-selves, when the values of tomorrow suggest certain things we do today are wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is going around in circles. I ask if people agre it's right to acknowledge historical events. They avoid answering that and try to turn the conversation a different way. I don't know why none of you will answer the simple question of whether or not it's good that the British recognise an event that definitely happened. I'm not interested in talking about non-existent apologies or whether someone I don't know should have got sad, when I don't know what made them sad.

 

What I do know is that Britain agreed it happened and that it was a bad thing. I'm pleased about that. It's a strong self-secure thing to do and improves our image and reputation. Good stuff.

 

 

It comes down to those simple uncomplicated questions.

 

Was there a massacre?

Is it a sad thing that there was a massacre?

 

That's it.

 

There's really no more to this. If the answer to those is yes, we agree with each other and with the government. If it's no, we'll never see eye to eye and I'll never really understand your position. I'm just going to be repeating myself if I post again, so that's it for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have made a perfectly valid point well several times. He is either being deliberately obtuse or is not very bright, a trait you find in those of a far right disposition. The chances of a straight answer are very slim. A bit like Boris.

 

Thanks, but I try to deliberately stay away from the polarising left/right thing, because I find people just hop onto their perceived side and discount all points on the other side that they might actually agree with. It's better to look for the common ground and work from that. Here I would imagine we mainly agree that it's good to acknowledge history, but we don't need to feel guilt or apologise for events we had no control over. We also don't need to demonise figures of the past who were operating in a way that was viewed differently then. We can all agree though that it's regrettable the first meeting of the cultures resulted in an unnecessary massacre, but we don't have to feel shame about that in our generation and we can recognise that we were in a battle with many other lands to build empire and hold a position of strength and development, which was a brutal business.

 

I'm not interested in attacking or feuding with individuals on here and think that the continuing squabbling across threads is just tedious. I like discussing a worthwhile subject though. As for left and right, my ideas of right and wrong in individual situations aren't going to decided for me by a tribalistic left/right perception. I've voted both ways based on the situation at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have made a perfectly valid point well several times. He is either being deliberately obtuse or is not very bright, a trait you find in those of a far right disposition. The chances of a straight answer are very slim. A bit like Boris.

 

Please describe what far right is, in your view!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please describe what far right is, in your view!
dont worry Batman, Sadoldgit uses language that if used against him would go off in a strop. Like the left wingers they have an arrogance that they are the only intelligent ones and know it all whereas everyone else is thick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure my definition of the far right is no different to yours or anybody else’s. Oh and Nick, I am not technically a “lefty” but yes, I do think that racists are thick.
I dont count right wingers as racists, those are extreme right wingers. Also the far left are racist as well. Uncle Joe being a fine example
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})